As it is, John Lane forbids me to write in any other thread until I finish this one, he even deleting some things I posted recently to other threads.

Behind the scenes I have corresponded with Fr. Laisney and find he also is confused about the distinction between the essence of a thing & its consequences (yes, I have told Fr. Laisney this).

My advice to John Lane is that if he thinks a person took something out of context, he should treat it as a "mistake", in charity, and not immediately let into a person as if he did a sneaky or evil thing.

I will present my last good reason for thinking what I did about the essence of sedevacantism with a quote from a philosophy book followed by another quote from the sspx.org website. From there, let the readers judge for themselves:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Elements of Philosophy: Comprising Logic and Ontology Or General MetaphysicsBy Walter Henry Hill, S.J. (1879)

The essence, therefore, is that without which a thing can neither exist, nor be conceived, and which makes it what it is, when it exists. Essence of a thing, is the real answer to the question: "What is it?"-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------A Little Catechism on Sedevacantism

What is sedevacantism?

Sedevacantism is the theory of those who think that the most recent popes, the popes of the Second Vatican Council, have not really been popes. Consequently, the See of Peter is not occupied. This is expressed in Latin by the formula sede vacante. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other issue in this thread was the authority of the sspx.org website to represent the SSPX. Perhaps I will have more in the future on that, but I think anyone with a brain knows that all these years the layman webmaster is not putting that material up solely by his own personal decisions. The world, and the sspx laity, do indeed read that and believe that the SSPX organization has no problem whatsoever with people believing what is posted there.

Now, more to the point. I referenced an article by Richard Cure on sedevacantism to show that the SSPX accuses sedevacantists of having a heretical position. John Lane did not like that, and was quick to insert doubt that it represented SSPX thinking (even though it was posted originally in the Angelus, and on the sspx.org web site for years). So, let me drop "Richard Cure" altogether and turn to Fr. Laisney, which John Lane, himself, quoted as representing SSPX thinking. That will serve my purpose very well.

Fr. Laisney wrote:

It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy.

Fr. Laisney said one of the same things that I originally mentioned Richard Cure's article claimed - that the sedevacantist position was against dogma - Fr. Laisney says "because" he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Abp. Lefebvre rejected the sedevacantist position.

Are you going to tell us now, John, that saying something is against a dogma is not saying it is heretical?

Fr. Laisney wrote in his email to me:"the sedevacantist position thus leads to a notion of the Church without Pope, without legitimate cardinals and bishops (since those nominated by a false Pope could not be legitimate), thus without a hierarchy, and without normal means to restore one: such Church is certainly NOT the Church as our Lord Jesus Christ has established it! Therefore..."

According to Fr. Laisney, John, the sedevacantist position is against Catholic teaching, no?

_________________It prays to poofread!

Fri Jun 21, 2013 12:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Robert,

First, I wish to apologise for suggesting that you lacked integrity. I do see that what is more likely is that you are simply so wedded to your ideas that you cannot conceive that you are wrong. This has led you to quote Fr. Laisney's email selectively, for example. I really should not have been willing to think less of you, morally, as I did, especially since I have seen this same syndrome in men for whom I have the highest possible respect; men whose holiness and rectitude of will was manifest. It is a wonderful thing to behold a truly holy man quoting selectively and really quite perversely, but in all innocence, but I have seen it several times. I've seen it with sedevacantists, with SSPX priests, and now with you.

Second, I think you should now just paste in the whole of the latest email you received from Fr. Laisney, in which he qualifies what he meant by the term "definition" in the email that you earlier quoted selectively. Also paste in your own email to which he was responding.

Third, you need to stop and ponder deeply what he meant, and means, and I strongly recommend that you re-read this entire thread with as open a mind as you can produce. If you do so, you should eventually be able to see that this latest post of yours is really just a way of abandoning your original argument, admitting the truth of my argument, and starting again with a new one. This is obviously a totally unacceptable procedure.

Fourth, to answer this new argument, no, the SSPX writers do not say that the bare notion that the See is vacant is unorthodox, but rather they say that it leads necessarily to unorthodox propositions (e.g. that there is no longer any hierarchy). If they are right about the question of logic (that sedevacantism leads necessarily to unorthodox propositions), then they are right about the question of doctrine (i.e. they are right to qualify it as unorthodox). Their error is one of logic, and they share this error with the Guerardians, who also hold that "simple" sedevacantism leads necessarily to unorthodox propositions. Ironically, this same error is shared by Fr. Cekada, except that he holds that the proposition to which he thinks that sedevacantism necessarily leads is not unorthodox! (But he very definitely will not debate this question, as we have seen. Instead, he ridicules the opposing view! Again, the temptation to doubt his good faith is overwhelming, and must be resisted.)

Robert, you have not understood the SSPX view of the question. Having not understood it, you are unable to address it in a way which might produce a change in it. And, I will say that in the past ten or more years those of us who have understood their position, and have worked to correct misconceptions on their part (as well as deepening our own understanding of the relevant doctrine and law), have been responsible for a significant improvement in the "sedeplenist" complex of arguments. What I am saying is that we are winning the argument, by stages, and I think we are not that far from completely overwhelming the opposition. I am not suggesting that this will happen in a brief time, but that they do not have many arguments left. Mr. Bergoglio is in that sense a gift to us. What is crucial is to eliminate as far as possible the impression they have that in fact we are merely ignorant and bitter men whose real agenda is driven by malice against them. The kind of language you have used about their views is not merely inaccurate, it's totally counter-productive.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 21, 2013 1:35 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Bishop Williamson: "Too many Catholics follow our sentimental world in thinking that wherever there is niceness, there is truth."

Too many sedevacantists appear to think that the opposite must be the case: Where there is harshness, there is truth.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 21, 2013 3:10 am

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

I cannot help but to take you aside for a moment, and ask you, John: do you believe Francis is a true pope, and that Paul VI and John Paul II died as true popes?

I had written:"one can generally say that sedevacantists agree with this basic tenet: For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant. This can be the "definition" of the sedevacantist position."

You asked if it "can be quoted in isolation".

The answer is: NO.

Grammatically, the sentence would be a mere statement of fact. As such, that statement would be simply false. But the gravity of the position comes from the consequences of such position, and that is what my development was explaining. The word "definition" had been carefully put in quotation marks precisely because it represented more a description of the common ground of all sedevacantist rather than a logical definition. It needed the development to understand the implications in it. The problem with many sedevacantists is that they only consider the antecedents (i.e. their reasons for holding such position), and not the consequences of such position. They should rather consider these consequences, and run away from such grave error, as I explained.

Would you be so kind as to confirm for me whether the following excerpt can be quoted in isolation to represent the definition (as you gave it) for the sedevacantist position?:

"For the past 40years+, the see of Peter has been vacant."

It appears so from the context you had written (below).

Unfortunately, I have to delay a response to another person until I get this confirmed.

Thank you,Robert S...

Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:07 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Now we have even more light.

Apparently it wasn't welcomed by the one who requested it, however.

Robert, in case you haven't noticed, I am a man who answers objections and questions, as a rule. I don't like ignoring either objections or questions, as I feel that when others do so, it indicates an inability to come up with a good reply. However, in your case I make a special exception to my usual rule. Can you guess why that is? I know you won't answer that, so I will tell you anyway: You don't answer objections or questions. You just ignore what the other chap says and move on to some other point. So, until you change that approach, you won't have any questions answered by me. And as for objections, I will choose to answer only those which serve my purposes.

So go back through this thread and find the questions you've been asked, and cheerfully ignored, and answer them. Then I might answer a question from you.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 21, 2013 11:15 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Oh, and how about saying, in response to Fr. Laisney's last email to you, something like, "Well, I'll be darned, who'd a thunk it? I was w.r.o.n.g., wrong!"

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Jun 21, 2013 7:30 pm

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Your very first objections to my proof were your denial that the sspx.org site represents SSPX thinking & questioning the definition of sedevacantism. I have maintained a focus on these because they were first in order of business. You just need to have more patience. My taking care of first-things-first is not "ignoring" the other things. Apparently another one of your rules is introducing extraneous and unrelated matter into a discussion that requires me to temporarily ignore it until the focus is taken care of first. One big example, here, is your constant push to get me to talk about the visibility of the Church and what some other sedevacantist(s) said about it, which was never the focus of the discussion. Believe me, I even ignore things you say that are favorable for me, but which I think are not pertinent to the immediate matter at hand and would distract from it. But, since everything is in hardcopy, I am satisfied that eventually everything can be covered in the future.

My immediately previous posting of some length was precisely to the point of this thread. You may be happy to know, I do consider the focus on the authority of the sspx.org site and the definition of sedevacantism to be finished. John, my success on any point is not determined by convincing you, personally.

After finishing up on those two points, I ended my last lengthy posting to show that while you consider Fr. Laisney's words to represent SSPX thinking, he is essentially saying the same as Richard Cure's article. Specifically, the SSPX say that sedevacantism is dangerous to the Faith, which means they accuse it of being heretical. You immediately wanted to deny that in Richard Cure's case, but Fr. Laisney says the same thing. This is precisely to the point of the beginning of this thread in answer to your objections. Fr. Laisney also says the same as Richard Cure - that the ideals of Gallicanism is sedevacantism. That means heretical. On principle, that which, by logic, necessarily goes contrary to Catholic doctrine, is heretical.

In the very beginning of this thread, my point about the SSPX accusing sedevacantism of being heretical was to say that the accusation necessarily goes both ways if each thinks the other is mistaken. It is reciprocal. So, John, while you rent your garment to say my accusation is a "vicious slur", I, naturally, say the SSPX are the ones with the vicious slurs against sedevacantists. I say that sedevacantism neither harms the doctrine of the visibility of the Church, nor has anything to do with the heresy of Gallicanism. I can prove it, but that is not the point of this particular thread.

The crux of proving my allegation about the SSPX is centered around the doctrinal axiom, "Where there is Peter, there is the Church". That is the principle you claimed "humility" makes the SSPX "stop short" from addressing. Humility means either the SSPX think it is "above them" to go there, or the superior orders them not to go there. If you feel it is not above you to go there and no superior prevents you, maybe you can do what the SSPX is not able to. I can lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink. I gave all the Church quotes that reveal very cleary (as the Church always does) what it means for "the Church" to "do" something, even tacitly. The SSPX grossly violate this in practice, daily. Actions speak louder than words.

John, if that same "humility" as the SSPX prevents you, too, then I am really finished in this thread, as far as I am concerned. You may even have the last word and tell everyone you think you won. I simply trust, after it is all laid out, that the silent majority can judge for themselves. The Catholics quotes I gave earlier are flagrantly violated by the SSPX.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Fri Jun 21, 2013 10:20 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Robert,

Your chief difficulty, apart from what appears to be a total absence of logic, is that you haven't noticed that all traditional Catholics are facing an unprecedented crisis in the Church and each of us is trying to make sense of it. I say, you have not noticed this fact. Perhaps it's too big for you. Perhaps you cannot see the wood for the trees. Or perhaps you don't know any ecclesiology, and therefore you don't see that there is anything mysterious about the situation. But whatever the cause, the effect is manifest - you are blind to the problem, and therefore you don't understand why there are various solutions proposed.

Vatican II happened, and various good and holy Catholics reacted in different ways. Some concluded that Paul VI was not really pope, yet did not make this conclusion a cause of division with those who didn’t agree with him. Others, such as Archbishop Lefebvre himself, preferred to withhold judgement pending greater clarity about facts. Others again formed the judgement that Paul VI was not really pope, and proceeded to declare that all of the acts of Paul VI were null and void in accordance with the provisions of Cum ex apostolatus.

After a not very lengthy time, two theories presented themselves under the title, “sedevacantism”: Guerard des Lauriers’ Thesis of Cassiciacum, and what I have called Cum ex apostolatus sedevacantism – that is, the notion that all offices are vacant, either by adherence of the putative office-holders to Vatican II and the New Mass, or because the acts of appointment to ecclesiastical offices were invalid. Guerard’s thesis is not traditional – that is, it finds no support in traditional theology – and Fr. Cekada’s thesis is contrary to Christian doctrine. The censure it deserves is debatable, but since its chief defender will not debate the matter, the question cannot be ventilated satisfactorily.

So, there has never been any cogent theory of “sedevacantism” published which is both traditional and avoids heterodox conclusions. Even my own views, published here and in The Four Marks, do not amount to a systematic, proven whole. I think they solve the difficulties, but until and unless they can be united into a serious book-length set of arguments with proofs, I can hardly claim to have put forth the answers. And in any case, why should any cleric, let alone six hundred of them, take seriously anything an uneducated layman like me has to offer?

Where is the book, by a trained theologian, solving the major theoretical problems we face?

So we have an absence of any serious solutions on our side. Then, to compound the problem, both of the main species of “sedevacantism” which are supported by some PR effort now agree in arguing that it is unlawful – or at least, gravely dangerous – to assist at a mass offered by a non-sedevacantist priest. So we have a non-solution, which in its most obvious manifestation leads directly to heterodox conclusions, acting as a powerful motive force to separate people from the mass and sacraments. What a terrific combination. A real winner.

And you think that a priest who reacts against this mess is adopting an heretical position? You’re nuts.

Worse, you allege that these non-sedevacantist priests hold that the Church is responsible for the evils of the New Mass and Vatican II, yet as I have proved by quoting them, they hold the very opposite! Even Fr. Cekada accepts that Fr. Laisney holds the very opposite. Did you retract your evil allegation? No.

The SSPX position is simply that the New Mass is evil, that the errors of Vatican II are not from the Church and must be rejected, and that even though the hierarchy of the New Church is the hierarchy of the true Church, the doctrine of true and false obedience suffices to permit a Catholic lawfully to maintain the traditional religion. This position is not the answer, I agree, but it’s orthodox. If it weren’t, you’d be able to say why, and you can’t do so without caricaturing it and then trying to prove that the caricature is unorthodox.

I have proved beyond the possibility of dispute that what the SSPX clergy reject and condemn is any theory that concludes that there is no hierarchy. So much is this clear, even to you, that when Fr. Laisney replied as he did above, and finally disappointed your hope that he would support your case against his own views, you replied to him harshly and shortly, as follows:

He has actually had a full seminary course in philosophy. He knows how to distinguish an idea from its consequences. He will also be able to see that you are incapable of grasping his actual argument, despite its utter clarity, and that you are rude and arrogant to boot.

But let's take this answer of yours at face value. Fr. Laisney, in your estimation, is refusing to admit what he knows to be the case - viz. that your own interpretation of his own words is accurate, and his own interpretation of his own words is mistaken. I mean, wow, I have seen people argue against their own authorities before (idiotically!), but never have I seen anybody argue directly with his own authority!

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:45 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

There's only one point in your latest that I want to address directly, and it is this little beauty:

RobertJS wrote:

I gave all the Church quotes that reveal very cleary (as the Church always does) what it means for "the Church" to "do" something, even tacitly.

This is typical of your slovenly, amateurish, approach to sacred matters. No, you have not given the proofs in "Church quotes" for any proposition at all. You have, as you always do, presented tiny snippets without real references which you use to support your own proposition, which you do not even define clearly. It's just terrible how you approach these things, these serious things.

Robert, go and find a book which addresses the point you wish to prove. Then quote it in extenso. That is, at least a few paragraphs. Make sure that there is sufficient text for a reader to learn what the author is actually teaching. And give a full reference that can be checked if the reader desires to do so. Yes, I know this requires real effort, and that Google may not do it all for you, poor fellow. But this is not a game.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sat Jun 22, 2013 5:53 am

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

For lack of time, I will merely respond with this for now...

John Lane, within what he says is an orthodox position of the SSPX, wrote:

...the hierarchy of the New Church is the hierarchy of the true Church...

That a true pope can be head of the true Church and head of a false Church, is a flat out heresy.

Did you, John, insist from any SSPX priest, as you just did for me, "go and find a book which addresses the point you wish to prove. Then quote it in extenso. That is, at least a few paragraphs. Make sure that there is sufficient text for a reader to learn what the author is actually teaching. And give a full reference that can be checked if the reader desires to do so."

Slovenly, in such a serious matter? Doube-standard? In fact, if you claim it is orthodox, why don't you provide this for us here?

_________________It prays to poofread!

Sun Jun 23, 2013 7:22 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Robert,

Since you lack the time to treat any of these matters with the gravity they deserve, don't address them at all.

You don't have any books explaining the principle you gathered ten snippets about, so just admit it.

RobertJS wrote:

For lack of time, I will merely respond with this for now...

John Lane, within what he says is an orthodox position of the SSPX, wrote:

...the hierarchy of the New Church is the hierarchy of the true Church...

That a true pope can be head of the true Church and head of a false Church, is a flat out heresy.

No, it isn't, and a moment's reflection should prove it. The many theologians who held that a pope who became a manifest heretic would remain pope, at least until formally expelled by excommunication, did not appear to notice that their view was heretical, and neither did the Church herself. And St. Robert Bellarmine, when he says that the non-Christian cannot be pope, does not suggest that the contrary is heretical; he is content to state that "this principle is most certain" and leave it at that.

In any case, you've not taken the care to understand what SSPX writers mean by "New Church": do they mean a distinct society of men, with a formal membership of its own, etc.? No, that's not what they mean, and so clear is this that they react vigorously against any suggestion to the contrary. But why do I bother replying to one who displays nothing but contempt for the reasoning process, reasoned debate itself, and the reputations of other Catholics?

If you were serious about any of this, you yourself would explain what the New Church is and how it came to be, and most importantly, what the conditions of membership are, so that those who belonged to it at each stage of the revolution could be identified. Cardinal Siri, for example, who permitted the New Mass right across his archdiocese:- was he still a Catholic? I not, why not, and if yes, why was he not a member of this mysterious body, the New Church? You know, that body which is so mysterious most sedevacantists never say anything about it except that they, quite rightly, don't want anything to do with it.

The hierarchy of the New Church, as a whole, was most certainly the hierarchy of the true Church, in 1965.

_________________In Christ our King.

Sun Jun 23, 2013 10:46 pm

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

John Lane wrote:

Robert,

Since you lack the time to treat any of these matters with the gravity they deserve, don't address them at all.

Now you are going to argue about seriousness and gravity? I am the one giving most of the quotes. I am the one refraining from all those uncharitable digs you are giving me. I am the one keeping the focus. Let's not argue about who is more serious, that's just another diversion of yours.

John Lane wrote:

You don't have any books explaining the principle you gathered ten snippets about, so just admit it.

RobertJS wrote:

For lack of time, I will merely respond with this for now...

John Lane, within what he says is an orthodox position of the SSPX, wrote:

...the hierarchy of the New Church is the hierarchy of the true Church...

That a true pope can be head of the true Church and head of a false Church, is a flat out heresy.

No, it isn't, and a moment's reflection should prove it.

Let's stop right there and look at what is highlighted, and take note that you require me to have a book that actually states my conclusion for me, while you are only obliged to have a "moment's reflection" and conclude, with no sources needed! That is a double-standard, John.

John Lane wrote:

The many theologians who held that a pope who became a manifest heretic would remain pope, at least until formally expelled by excommunication, did not appear to notice that their view was heretical, and neither did the Church herself. And St. Robert Bellarmine, when he says that the non-Christian cannot be pope, does not suggest that the contrary is heretical; he is content to state that "this principle is most certain" and leave it at that.

Let's have some more reflection. Theologians help immensely towards a final solution whether they were previously wrong, right, or partially right. You are apparently thinking of theologians before the closing of the Vatican Council of 1870. Since then it has solidly been taught with certainty, without room for other opinion, that the 5th opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine was the truth. St. Robert himself said at the time that the other opinions were false. Read that again, the other opinions were false and not according to the Church fathers. He taught that a manifest heretic cannot be a true pope and immediately cease to be so, ipso facto, and that this what is taught by all the fathers of the Church. This is what has been retained as the final solution after the Vatican Council (1870). All the books for general distribution to clergy and faithful flatly say this is the way it is. In 1877, Pius IX, upon declaring the Saint a Doctor, called St. Francis de Sales' work "Catholic Controversies" a "full and complete demonstration of the Catholic religion". St. Francis de Sales at the time he wrote it, was writing to Protestants about Catholic truth, not speculation for Catholic theologians. He plainly says that Honorius was "perhaps" a heretic, and all that pope did was write a personal letter to a Patriarch that was questionable, but nothing universal. Then St. Francis says immediately following that, that a pope who is explicitly a heretic ceases to be pope, just as St. Robert taught.

Saying a pope is the head of a false Church is precisely saying he is a manifest heretic. Give it a moment's reflection. They are co-extensive in concept. A confused mind, or modernist, or existentialist mind will not be able to grasp that simplicity of ordinary comprehension.

What are you going to insist upon, questioning what manifest and explicit means because it is too difficult, and then try to explain at what level one has to be head of a false Church in order to become so? Then you may come to the most absurd of all, that a pope has to say, "I know truth is immutable, and that this was once infallibly taught, but I want to teach it to the whole Church anyway." That is absurdly unrealistic and no heretic in history has said such a thing. The infallibility of the Church guarantees that The Holy Ghost protect the Universal Church from MATERIAL errors against faith. Meaning protection again unintended, non-deliberate or accidental errors. The SSPX has a heretical concept of infallibility of the Church because they admit that all the organs the Church has ever used as being "from the Church," are not really from the Church. This is a debilitated state of denial.

John Lane wrote:

In any case, you've not taken the care to understand what SSPX writers mean by "New Church": do they mean a distinct society of men, with a formal membership of its own, etc.? No, that's not what they mean, and so clear is this that they react vigorously against any suggestion to the contrary. But why do I bother replying to one who displays nothing but contempt for the reasoning process, reasoned debate itself, and the reputations of other Catholics?

A false Church, philosophically, is NOT a Church at all. So, it is merely a public group of leaders with public followers adhering to heretical doctrines. Simple as that. You try to grab a hold of everything and make a puzzle out of it.

The degree of success of my explanations are not estimated by whether or not "John Lane" is convinced by them. Just simply say why you are not convinced, and maybe I can add something for you personally.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Mon Jun 24, 2013 10:34 pm

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Robert,

You're not an infallible judge of what's relevant or merely a distraction. All through this thread you just ignore any argument or objection you don't like, and when called out on it, you accuse me of attempting to distract from the actual case. I've not done that once, actually. Not that I should have to say that.

I'll put this in very direct terms. Maybe it will penetrate your carapace. Robert, if the other fellow makes a point that you can't understand, maybe it's YOU that has the problem. Actually (I know that you find this hard to cope with) you have a limited ability to comprehend. We all do, it's human nature, and you're actually not a superior being. So, instead of assuming that the other bloke is a jerk who won't argue honestly, just take the points on face value and answer them. Yes, it might feel like such a waste of time, it may seem as though one is explaining the bleeding obvious, but it's all one can do.

You can call me uncharitable all day, every day. It has no effect. I am perfectly conscious of my use of ad hominem and it's quite deliberate. I seek two ends, the first is to discredit the opponent, and the second is to try and create doubt in the opponent's mind so that he will go back and reconsider. The first of these ends is the main one - the common good has overwhelming importance. The second of these ends is charity to you. I do hope that if I biff you around the ears you will reconsider your false and damaging views about most traditional priests, or at least, you will stop saying them publicly. And please, nobody who gets out in public and criticises others should ever complain about a lack of charity on the part of those who react. It's just bloody effeminate, OK? You CHOOSE to go out there and attack others. Take the knocks you get in return like a man.

On the use of sources, you gave yours, I refuted your use of them, and you ignored my answers. Later, you claimed to have proven a point using "Church quotes." So I was forced to point out that no, you have not, you have hardly begun to do so, and the reason is because you haven't actually got any decent chunk of text to work with, you've got snippets. Don't whine about being called out on this, go and find the text you need.

On the question of a double standard, no, I do not think only you need sources. Look, on the things that we agree upon, neither of us needs sources. We already agree. On the things on which one or other finds the other fellow's reasoning to be sound, we don't need sources, but on the things we cannot agree on, yes, we need sources. Feel free to demand them any time. But I have published millions of words of sources - entire theology books - so it isn't credible that I would like to avoid the use of them. I love them.

I didn't say merely that a moment's reflection will prove the point. I began with that sentence, then gave arguments to support my view (the "reflection" you need, in my opinion). If you think I need sources for that, demand them.

You allege, "This is what has been retained as the final solution after the Vatican Council (1870). All the books for general distribution to clergy and faithful flatly say this is the way it is." Actually, you are mistaken. "All" the books don't say that at all. Indeed, it's debatable whether the majority say it. I'll post some quotes later. Feel free to try and back up your own claim.

On the main point at issue, for which I demanded proper sources, you are building a case on a principle - silence is consent - and I have given reasons why you need to go far deeper into the question than you hitherto thought. My point, already made but missed by you, is that it is perfectly possible for two good Catholics to form different judgements upon the question of fact which is at the heart of the matter - viz. whether or not in any given case silence does really indicate consent. You may decide that you are entitled to question the good faith of the fellow whose judgement differs from yours. You may decide, having considered the matter from your superior seat, that in fact the other fellow is turning his eyes away from the light. But even if you conclude that he's mortally sinning in his failure to come to the same conclusion as you on this judgement of fact, his terrible crime does not amount to heresy. No, not even "objectively." His view, disastrous as it must be (since it's different from yours), is not heresy and cannot be heresy.

What would be unorthodox would be if he said, yes, the Church can approve evil doctrines, laws, or rites of worship. But these men say the very opposite, as I proved beyond any possibility of dispute.

So your case is not merely not made, it's in tatters.

You assert, "Saying a pope is the head of a false Church is precisely saying he is a manifest heretic." No, it isn't. If the false church in view were a condemned sect, then it would be at least schism, but in all likelihood heresy too. But the New Church is not a condemned sect. It is, in my view (and I think the Archbishop's view), a real society, as I tried to prove here: http://strobertbellarmine.net/Archbisho ... Church.pdf (Archbishop Lefebvre and the Conciliar Church). But the SSPX does not agree with me. Their position is that the New Church is merely an ens ratio, a complex of ideas and practices, or perhaps a mentality which afflicts Catholics, but not a separate body of men, outside the Church. So when they say, as Bishop Williamson says, that the Conciliar popes have been members of the Catholic Church and the New Church, the contradiction is apparent, not real. Yes, this is annoying - it would much nicer if they just saw things as we do - but it's not heresy.

_________________In Christ our King.

Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:26 am

RobertJS

Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 2:18 pmPosts: 73Location: New England

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

I see the big picture now. John Lane is no longer a sedevacantist. You have become a full-blown spixxie, believing Francis is a true pope. You try to cover up the fact that the SSPX does say the sedevacantist position is heretical, in order to try to make sedevacantists here feel comfortable with the SSPX, so you can pervert them over gradually to your newly found faith.

However, the SSPX does indeed say, on more than one account, that the sedevacantist position is heretical. You buy into that enough to keep it low profile and out-of-mind as much as possible. It is not merely defense of another group, but self-defense, John, which pushes you to use every tactic to make me and what I have to say look odious. Even the name-sake for your site, St. Robert Bellarmine, on one of the most crucial subjects, you have twisted either to make him mean something he doesn't, or to try to push the falsehood that the Church allows for another opinion on that point of theology.

The SSPX accusations of heretical sedevacantism is so easily debunked - primarily the accusation of Gallicanism & how it supposedly destroys the "visibility of the Church". The SSPX remind me of the Protestants: when you show them easily that we don't worship Mary, they go away silent, but never to change their accusation.

So we have the doctrinal axiom -"where the pope is there is the Church", something the SSPX fear. It entails that what the pope does officially is done in the name of the Church, and throughout history we all know what the organs of the magisterium, of law and the liturgy are. Vatican II has used all of the historically usual organs of Church procedure. Yet, the SSPX amazingly deny that "the Church" as done these things! Yet, they don't have to prove it; they only need to claim "humility" and say it is a "mystery"! But, when accused of error on that very subject, the spixxies demand proof of the sedevacantists. Double standard.

The indirect, heretical blasphemy is doing harm to the adherents and followers of the SSPX, strengthening that cult-like monolithic organization.

_________________It prays to poofread!

Wed Nov 12, 2014 11:22 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

Just to clarify, since somebody emailed to ask, I bumped this topic because it discusses questions raised recently by others. I was not seeking to highlight the embarrassing nonsense in the last post, or the embarrassing exposure of the same individual selectively quoting from Fr. Laisney's emails. That is all accidental. His posts could be completely ignored and the thread would still clarify facts and principles relevant to current questions. And to clarify the other question I was asked, in case anybody else is unsure, RobertJS is not Robert Siscoe or RJ Stove. They both have morals.

_________________In Christ our King.

Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:26 am

Admin

Site Admin

Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 2:30 pmPosts: 4334

Re: The non-sedevacantist position?

This defence of the non-sedevacantist position against an anti-SSPX attacker indicates how it is possible to comprehend and appreciate even a view that one does not agree with. This was one of Archbishop Lefebvre's virtues.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum